Offer to purchase question

[bokka1]

So I am in my new house.
It's been lodged so should be in my name soon. Currently paying occupational rent.
I've loving the new place but since moving in I have noticed a few things that probably should have been disclosed.

For example:
1. "Brick is loose on the wall" was disclosed but it did not say the whole wall will collapse if you open the door next to it. This door actually does not close if opened as the wall leans over when the gate is open.

2. A crack in 1x tile was disclosed but on closer inspection, I see there is also a crack at the back of the toilet that goes all the way to the tiles and I am wondering if there isn't a small water leak causing the tiles to lift.

Do I have any recourse?

These seems like patent defects and the voetstoots clause will protect the seller.

 

[RonSwanson]

So I am in my new house.
It's been lodged so should be in my name soon. Currently paying occupational rent.
I've loving the new place but since moving in I have noticed a few things that probably should have been disclosed.

For example:
1. "Brick is loose on the wall" was disclosed but it did not say the whole wall will collapse if you open the door next to it. This door actually does not close if opened as the wall leans over when the gate is open.

2. A crack in 1x tile was disclosed but on closer inspection, I see there is also a crack at the back of the toilet that goes all the way to the tiles and I am wondering if there isn't a small water leak causing the tiles to lift.

Do I have any recourse?

Did you go through an agent?

 

[Brawler]

Did you go through an agent?

yes.

 

[RonSwanson]

yes.

Then you have recourse, the agent is a professional, not a layperson and ought to have inspected and pointed this out.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

Then you have recourse, the agent is a professional, not a layperson and ought to have inspected and pointed this out.

They will unfortunately pull out the voetstoots clause and say they are not responsible for inspection...

 

[RonSwanson]

They will unfortunately pull out the voetstoots clause and say they are not responsible for inspection...

They are selling the property in the ordinary course of business, so the CPA applies.

 

[Lupus]

They are selling the property in the ordinary course of business, so the CPA applies.

Nope it doesn't, houses are sold voetstoets and it still stands. If you as the buyer didn't see the issues before you bought it and said onco of sale you want those fixed the chances are very slim anything will happen.

 

[prod]

The voetstoots thing is interesting. In our case the seller argued he sold voetstoots but what neither he nor the agent mentioned to us is that they neglected to do the necessary maintenance required by the HOA (and they were made aware of it!). So when transfer time came the HOA refused to provide the levy clearance certificate until someone (seller or purchaser) agreed to fixing the issues.

 

[nazmo]

So I am in my new house.
It's been lodged so should be in my name soon. Currently paying occupational rent.
I've loving the new place but since moving in I have noticed a few things that probably should have been disclosed.

For example:
1. "Brick is loose on the wall" was disclosed but it did not say the whole wall will collapse if you open the door next to it. This door actually does not close if opened as the wall leans over when the gate is open.

2. A crack in 1x tile was disclosed but on closer inspection, I see there is also a crack at the back of the toilet that goes all the way to the tiles and I am wondering if there isn't a small water leak causing the tiles to lift.

Do I have any recourse?

Doubt you can have recourse. They should disclose "within reason". Unless it was very obvious. We too moved into an older house and noticed things after the fact. At the same time, just before signing an OTP, we saw damp, and insisted they get the house damp proofed and certified with a guarantee signed over to us, the new owners.

They obliged at an expense of R30k to them.

When we came to view the house, (and many others), when interested, we brought along a friend who owns a civil engineering company, could easily spot structural/larger issues. Was very helpful.

 

[bokka1]

They are selling the property in the ordinary course of business, so the CPA applies.

Only if the seller is selling the house in the ordinary course of business then the CPA will apply.

Caveat emptor.

 

[RonSwanson]

Only if the seller is selling the house in the ordinary course of business then the CPA will apply.

Caveat emptor.

I agree that Caveat Emptor always applies. Yet the agent makes a living out of it, and is a home-selling specialist. It's ordinary course of business for them, so CPA applies.

Are you saying that the agent collects their (substantial) fee with nothing to lose? No value (besides paper-shuffling skills) provided? Sounds like protected employment to me, maybe I should become one and hire 30% graduates to do all the work

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

I agree that Caveat Emptor always applies. Yet the agent makes a living out of it, and is a home-selling specialist. It's ordinary course of business for them, so CPA applies.

Are you saying that the agent collects their (substantial) fee with nothing to lose? No value (besides paper-shuffling skills) provided? Sounds like protected employment to me, maybe I should become one and hire 30% graduates to do all the work

The agent is not selling though, they're facilitating the sale. The deal is between buyer and seller.

The second para is exactly what an agent does. They market, provide an OTP and facilitate communications between buyer and seller. Which is why you can save yourself a bucketload by not using one...

 

[RonSwanson]

The agent is not selling though, they're facilitating the sale. The deal is between buyer and seller.

The second para is exactly what an agent does. They market, provide an OTP and facilitate communications between buyer and seller. Which is why you can save yourself a bucketload by not using one...

Yes, we all know that agents are less than useless. But in the case presented by @Brawler , the seller presented it as:

"Brick is loose on the wall" was disclosed but it did not say the whole wall will collapse if you open the door next to it. This door actually does not close if opened as the wall leans over when the gate is open.

and

A crack in 1x tile was disclosed but on closer inspection, I see there is also a crack at the back of the toilet that goes all the way to the tiles and I am wondering if there isn't a small water leak causing the tiles to lift.

It would appear to me that the seller made a fraudulent misrepresentation that was material:

Summarily stated, the instances when a seller can in fact return the item/property or ask for a reduction in the price irrespective of the voetstoots clause exists when:

• The defect was deliberately concealed and if the buyer had seen the defects, they would have stopped the sale or negotiated a lower price.
• The seller made a fraudulent misrepresentation that was material.
• The property or product had the defect at the time of sale, and the seller knew of the defect and did not disclose it.

The onus is consequently placed on the buyer to prove the deliberate concealment with the intention to defraud and that the seller knew of the defect and did not disclose it.

ref: https://www.abgross.co.za/voetstoots-clause-property-buyers-and-sellers/

hence there is recourse.

 

[RonSwanson]

The agent is not selling though, they're facilitating the sale. The deal is between buyer and seller.

The second para is exactly what an agent does. They market, provide an OTP and facilitate communications between buyer and seller. Which is why you can save yourself a bucketload by not using one...

Further to this:

IS THE ESTATE AGENT LIABLE?​

In a normal transaction, with the estate agent being the go-between between the Seller and the Purchaser, the agent speaks to the Purchaser and not the Seller to the Purchaser. A lot of the time the Purchaser never even meets the Seller, so the Seller and Purchaser cannot discuss the defects of the property, but it is discussed via the estate agent.


Purchasers tend to hold estate agents liable for latent defects and not the Sellers. The only obligation on the estate agent is to inspect the property for obvious patent defects. The agent can only disclose to the Purchaser what the Seller discloses to the agent, so the agent cannot be held liable for information that the agent did not have. The duty on the agent is to double-check with the Seller the state of the property and enquire properly after all defects – latent or patent.


The estate agent should disclose as much information as possible and make sure that it is in writing and make sure that both the Seller and the Purchaser signs that they have read the disclosures.


THE BEST ADVICE is to (a) inspect the property properly (b) make sure that the estate agent gives you a written list of disclosures that can be annexed to the sale agreement (c) use a good conveyancer to attend to the transfer of your property.

Does the "Voetstoets" clause apply to Property Transactions in SA?

How the South African voetstoets clause affects property transactions. What the Seller must disclose about property damages and defects in terms of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). Liability including Estate Agents.

www.findanattorney.co.za

We need some case history to wake the useless slumbering estate agents up a bit and increase their liability in a sale.

 

[Erohann]

Registered today... yay

Got a followup today that it is in fact not registered... Ugh

 

[bokka1]

Further to this:

IS THE ESTATE AGENT LIABLE?​

In a normal transaction, with the estate agent being the go-between between the Seller and the Purchaser, the agent speaks to the Purchaser and not the Seller to the Purchaser. A lot of the time the Purchaser never even meets the Seller, so the Seller and Purchaser cannot discuss the defects of the property, but it is discussed via the estate agent.


Purchasers tend to hold estate agents liable for latent defects and not the Sellers. The only obligation on the estate agent is to inspect the property for obvious patent defects. The agent can only disclose to the Purchaser what the Seller discloses to the agent, so the agent cannot be held liable for information that the agent did not have. The duty on the agent is to double-check with the Seller the state of the property and enquire properly after all defects – latent or patent.


The estate agent should disclose as much information as possible and make sure that it is in writing and make sure that both the Seller and the Purchaser signs that they have read the disclosures.


THE BEST ADVICE is to (a) inspect the property properly (b) make sure that the estate agent gives you a written list of disclosures that can be annexed to the sale agreement (c) use a good conveyancer to attend to the transfer of your property.

Does the "Voetstoets" clause apply to Property Transactions in SA?

How the South African voetstoets clause affects property transactions. What the Seller must disclose about property damages and defects in terms of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). Liability including Estate Agents.

www.findanattorney.co.za

We need some case history to wake the useless slumbering estate agents up a bit and increase their liability in a sale.

You can report the agent at the EAAB but that won't bring you any joy regarding house defects.

The Seller is the responsible party.

The agent is not a structural engineer, you can't rely on them to do your job. The reasonable buyer will inspect the property thoroughly.

 

[bokka1]

Got a followup today that it is in fact not registered... Ugh

That is scary.

 

[TheBadMadMan]

Got a followup today that it is in fact not registered... Ugh

How does something like this even happen?

Did the conveyancer let you know it was registered and then backtracked or did you misinterpret when they informed you registration was due to take place "today"?

 

[Thor]

Hypothetical as this has come up with a friend of mine.

Let's say you inherited 2 million

But you earn a normal salary say R25k to R30k

Would you rather buy 2 x 1 million flats cash

Or would you buy 4 x 1 million flats with a 500k deposit on each

Does the bank allow you to do that since in my mind a salary of 25 to 30 doesn't qualify for a big loan like that really?

How else would you deploy the inherited money if your aim is to increase your cash flow over time (income).

 

[Gtx Gaming]

You need earn around 51k for the banks to give bonds to total of 2million.

Buy 2 flats and once you get start getting income you can add that rental to your income to qualify for higher bonds.

I bought a flat and will form part of my wifes income, then early next year I will try and get approved for another flat as the income will be showing on my wife account for few months by that time.

I will keep on doing that as long I can afford to cover thr shortfall